codesafe_list_tasks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure ('totalCount and quickVOS, each carries taskVO.pkTask / taskName / taskStatus / language, plus owner and time'), which is helpful. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'list' implies it. It adds return structure beyond what annotations would provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, then efficiently adds return field info and a usage pointer. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two pagination parameters, an output schema), the description is largely complete: it explains the return structure and hints at downstream usage. It could be improved by mentioning that page_size and page_index control pagination, but that is inferable from parameter names.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter understanding. It does not mention page_size or page_index at all, nor explain pagination behavior. The schema provides only names and defaults, leaving agents to guess their semantics. This is a significant gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List quick-check scan tasks.' It specifies the resource (quick-check scan tasks) and the verb (List), distinguishing it from sibling tools like codesafe_list_bugs. It also mentions the return fields, making the purpose undeniable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context: 'Use a pkTask as taskId below.' This tells agents that this tool is meant to obtain task IDs for subsequent operations. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this over alternatives, though sibling names help.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.